🏅 Top traders

https://manifold.markets/SEE/this-market-resolves-as-yes-if-some-93e0ceda65c8

This market resolves as YES if someone holds ≥ 50,000 NO shares at close

50% chance. Resolves NO if the conditions are not met (no one holding ≥50,000 NO shares at the time of close). Only human shareholders will count. Alt accounts are not allowed. In case of suspicion about an alt account being used to hold the 50,000 shares, I will ask someone with permissions to check device ids, usage, etc. This is another continuation of the @firstuserhere series. In the previous entires, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000, and 25,000 all resolved YES. But now we've abandoned the slow 5,000-at-a-time progression and gone straight for doubling the previous entry. Withe the pattern of increases seeing a discontinuity, will the pattern of resolutions hold, or will we see a discontinuity there, too? Like all of my markets, I will not bet on this market. (Managrams to defray my costs in opening a non-predictive market, or just show appreciation, would in turn be appreciated.)

Soooo, we had not one, but two someones holding ≥ 25,000 NO shares at the end.

Of course, the bants outcome would be that @8, @firstuserhere, and @ButtocksCocktoasten are all planning to pull the rug out from under us.

1. Get the 25,000+ positions in there nice and early to get the market high (and discourage any potential rivals who might go for a YES resolution sincerely)

2. Have two 25,000+ positions so that bettors think "well even if one pulls the rug, there's still a backup one!"

3. Just before close, @8 sells their YES, through everybody's nice high limit orders, and @firstuserhere and @ButtocksCocktoasten sell just enough NO to go under 25,000.

4. @8 takes a loss, probably, but it's more than made up for by their partners' profits, which are redistributed later.

Do I think they're planning to do this? Not really. Am I 95% sure they're not going to? Nope!

@Fion There's actually a cleaner option where FUH and Buttocks put a limit order for Trong to sell into, so that they all make a profit and there's no need for post-game redistribution.

@Fion @firstuserhere @ButtocksCocktoasten oh dang, he figured it out guys !

The NO bets at 25,000 M make no sense

@nixtoshi someone buys Up the matket to 99%, someone other buys 25k No shares for 250 Mana and the yes person gives the other person half of the profit+250 Mana.

@Willi so basically 2 people or a group rig it to collect the NO bets.
Really weird prediction market

Anyone in the NO camp want to give their rational? every single other market of this kind has resolved YES. 25k is not that different from 20k. Are people unaware that a significant number of users have that much mana? If this market was 100,000 NO shares I might consider buying NO if there weren't that many traders and the close date was soon.

@DylanSlagh Why would any individual NO'er buy more than 24,999 NO Shares though? Seems like it would be pretty simple to make this resolve NO, with rational and competent NO'ers.

@AnthonyM The 15k market of the same kind resolved YES because I was the biggest YES shareholder and my girlfriend, who doesn't care about manifold, held the NO shares. Any two people can coordinate a YES resolution. You just need to find one person in the whole world who will act irrationally. In the 20k market I held the NO shares and I did so because me and Marcus came to an agreement and I believed in honoring that agreement. Is that really that irrational, when we are part of a community which relies on trust?

@DylanSlagh I also made profit in the 20k NO share market because I was the biggest YES holder before Marcus converted all my YES shares to NO shares

@DylanSlagh some of the scenarios that has been kicking around in my head every time, are:

1. a miscalculation on the part of the main YES-er
2. a last second defection by the irrational actor (the shump flip)
3. internet/site connectivity issues at the last moment.
4. an "alt based counterattack" in which all the alts have highest possible limit orders that get shares to just under the limit, increasing the YES-er's required mana hugely (though this is, if time/confusion is no issue, thwarted by a straight 25,000 NO BUY on the YES-er's alt. though, if the main YES-er does not have an alt, might be enough to get the main fixer to not be able to afford the NO shares, or to not have been paid enough to afford them).
5. main YES-er defects to NO and no other main YES-ers have arranged for the market to be fixed.

Ultimately anyone with a 25k alt balance is capable of resolving it NO, but there seems to exist several plausible scenarios where some second order manipulation can squeeze profit out of people thinking they're in on the first order manipulation.

That being said, I've profited from buying moderate levels of YES every time. But if these keep going indefinitely, it seems only a matter of time until:
1. people are in on it enough to make the YES fixing not worth the risk
2. the stakes are so high that second order manipulation is too tantalizing

@AnthonyM I'll provide my rationale/proposition, which is pretty similar to the ones that I've offered previously for similar markets:

If someone places a limit order for YES, I'll buy against their order up until I reach 25K shares for NO. You have my word that I will not sell. (It's true that my word means nothing on an online site! But never have I gone back on my word on this site, nor have I done anything controversial or untrustworthy on this site. You can fact-check this.) In return, I would like however much mana I put into this market (e.g. if I bought 25K NO shares for M200, I would receive a managram or manalink of M200). Note that if you place a limit order against my M200 or however much, you won't lose any mana overall by paying me back. Additionally, once the market is over, I would like 25% of your total profit, minus what you have already paid me. (So in the same scenario, if you made M1000, and you paid me M200 already, then I would receive 20% of (1000 - 200) = M200). This 25% would be paid after the market resolves, which is after you presumably profit. Notice that I am trusting you to pay me back here! So there is mutual trust going both ways here.

Alternatively, I am willing to do this deal, but instead, I will be the one placing the limit order and the other person will buy and hold 25K shares for NO. They must be someone that I trust and I will give them 50% of my profits instead of 25%.

@cece this does rely on people with sufficient balance being interested, though. If my maths is right, the YES buyer in the partnership needs 25,000M * P, where P is the market probability where the trade between the two partners takes place.

If your balance is 15,000M, I think the limit order needs to be at 60%, so your NO partner would need to have ~10,000M.

Alas, I only have 3,000M.

(I think the simplest thing to do is to put the limit order at 99%, which minimises the amount the partners need to "settle up" afterwards. But this requires almost 25,000 on the part of the YES partner.)